Archives

John Drescher, the executive editor of Raleigh’s News & Observer, had an odd and flawed column over the weekend regarding UNC Law School professor Gene Nichol entitled “Gene Nichol doesn’t regret column about Pat McCrory.” (Full disclosure: Nichol used to serve on the Board of the NC Justice Center, NC Policy Watch’s parent organization).

It was odd because it awkwardly combined what was, by all appearances, a brief news report/interview with Nichol along with Drescher’s own take on Nichol’s falling out with the state powers that be — some of which stemmed from some columns Nichol has authored for the N&O. Drescher quoted Nichol as saying he had no regrets in likening Governor McCrory to reactionary conservative governors from the Civil Rights era. As Nichol told Drescher:

“I said he was a successor to them.I do think it’s fair. I think it’s accurate. I’m not saying he’s exactly the same.”

But then Drescher went on to tack a commentary of his own into the last few sentences of the column in which he rejected Nichol’s explanation. According to Drescher:

“By going after McCrory in a personal way, Nichol made it easy for his opponents to focus on Nichol and ignore his broader, more significant message.

Professors ought to be able to write in The N&O (or anywhere else) without fear of retribution from politicians or their appointees. But they should inform us through research and lead us though debate at a high level that is focused on ideas and aspirations. In that regard, Nichol came up short.”

Hmm – let me get this straight, John. Are you really saying that “professors” should never issue “personal” barbs and only “inform us through research”? Really? Why? Indeed, what the heck does that even mean? And how do you define “research”? What was Nichol supposed to do — insert footnotes in his columns? Read More

In case you missed last week’sFitzsimon File on the ridiculous and partisan demise of the state teaching fellows program, click here to read it on the website of Raleigh’s News & Observer where it is — even at the height of March Madness — the #1 trending story.

Seems safe to say that the column has touched a nerve with North Carolinians. Now, if only the troubled souls running our state would pay attention for a change.

“For the average person, when they have a deadline and they need to get something done, they are held accountable,” said Berger, an Eden Republican, at the weekly Republican news conference.

What the heck is going on? Has North Carolina’s Senate President Pro Tem had some kind of revelation? Did he meet with a therapist or member of the clergy and decide to bare his soul? I mean, what could have possibly spurred such a powerful admission/confession?

Wait a minute. Oh, now I see; the article is dated Monday July 14, 2009. Berger was talking about the Democrats — you know, the folks who were desperately trying to wend their way through the fallout from the worst economic crisis in 75 years.

Obviously, Berger wouldn’t use such language to describe the current situation — you know, the one in which state leaders are calling each other insulting names and just generally acting like children as they work diligently not to solve myriad problems – most notably an unnecessary budget shortfall – of their own creation.

“McCrory’s plan, developed over months of consultations with North Carolina providers, would make quality care its first goal, but it would also produce savings through preventative care and more efficient delivery of medical services.

McCrory’s plan would replace the cost-inflating, fee-for-service approach now in use and instead pay providers for making people well and keeping them from getting sick.

The foundation for this approach is already in place through North Carolina’s nonprofit Community Care program. Now it needs to be refined and expanded.

The governor has done well to listen to doctors about improving Medicaid. Now let’s hope he can get the General Assembly to listen to him.”

Another day, another editorial condemning the efforts of legislative leaders to claim “immunity” when it comes to disclosing documents related to their passage last year of the “monster” voter suppression law.

“Now their actions are all the more suspicious because they are hiding from public disclosure. They’re saying they don’t have to give up the emails and other documents they generated as part of their public actions because they’re protected by ‘legislative immunity.’